Making Sense of Private Experience

by Bill Meacham on January 21st, 2016

Ever since Kant we have recognized that we know reality only through our experience of it. We have no privileged epistemic access to the Dingen An Sich, the things in themselves. (In fact the presumption that there are many things is just that, a presumption.) All we have is phenomena, how reality appears to us; all we have is our experience. What is of interest, then, is how to make sense of that experience.

Along these lines, Tommy Kelly, a friend in the philosophy club and quite a bright and interesting fellow, has an intriguing comment on my blog post “Is Science a Religion?” In that essay I claim that there is a parallel between scientific observation and meditative experience. Tommy wants to take it a step further and say there is really no difference at all between the two. Here is what he writes:

Reading your article reminded me of a question I’ve had for a while but for which as yet I’ve not been able to figure out an answer. You say:

…religion at its best bears some resemblance to science. The phenomena it concerns are not public in the same way that the subject matter of the physical sciences is. But they are subject to verification. There exist, for instance, quite detailed sets of instructions for meditative practices that produce altered experiential states. …You can think of spiritual practice as a sort of experiment. You have to do the experiment to get the results, just as you do in the physical sciences. Unlike the physical sciences, the results are largely private, not public; but they are not unverifiable.

I agree with most of that, but I’m suspicious of this part: “The phenomena it concerns are not public in the same way that the subject matter of the physical sciences is.” Consider the following two experiments:

Experiment One: Look through a telescope oriented in a particular way.

Result: You will experience a set of phenomena (sights, sounds, feelings, etc.) commonly known as “the rings of Saturn.” Note that these phenomena—your observations—are private. As you peer through the telescope you and only you will “see Saturn.” Nevertheless, someone else can repeat the experiment; and we are confident they will experience their own private observations that, according to our shared language game, are considered the same as yours.

Experiment Two: Kneel down with your back upright then close your eyes and make mental notes—”rising…rising…rising” and “falling…falling…falling”—corresponding with the movement of your abdomen as you breathe.

Result: You will experience a set of phenomena (sights, sounds, feelings, etc.) commonly known as “the first samatha jhana.”(1) (Of course I understate the amount of such practice that is needed, but the point remains regardless.) Note that these phenomena—your observations—are private. As you perform the noting exercise, you and only you will “enter jhana.” Nevertheless, someone else can repeat the experiment; and we are confident they will experience their own private observations that, according to our shared language game, are considered the same as yours.

Generalizing, then, it seems that *all* observations are private. In that case, the private versus public difference doesn’t seem to exist after all. So in what way is science different from religion-at-its-best?

To Tommy I respond as follows:

Yes, all observations are private, but what they are observations of is a matter of interpretation. Some are usefully taken to be public, and others, private. Science treats the former, and religion treats the latter.

The difference between seeing the rings of Saturn and experiencing the first samatha jhana is that all those who see the rings of Saturn consensually agree that what is seen is a set of objects existing independently of anyone’s seeing them; but those who experience the first samatha jhana consensually agree that what is experienced is not one set of objects existing independently of anyone’s experience of it, but rather a state that is experienced only by the experiencer. In other words, there are as many states as there are observers, and each observer experiences his or her own state of jhana, not anyone else’s. (In addition, you can quantify what is seen when you see the rings of Saturn but you cannot (I think) quantify what is experienced when you experience the first samatha jhana.)

We all consensually agree that what scientific observations are of is a reality independent of us. I suppose that we can’t unequivocally prove that it is so, but such an interpretation makes very good sense of our experience, and it works to help us get around in the world and make intellectual sense of it.

What meditators experience, we consensually agree, is private to each meditator. I suppose that we can’t unequivocally prove that it is so, but such an interpretation makes very good sense of our experience, and it works to help us get around in the world and make intellectual sense of it.

So the difference between science and religion-at-its-best is found not in single observations, each of which is indeed private, but in the sense we make of multiple observations by multiple people. It is reasonable to take the objects of science as public. It is reasonable to take the objects of religious experience as private, or at least not public in the same way.

William James, the great American Pragmatist, puts it this way:

Ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become [believable] just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience, to summarize them and get about among them by conceptual short-cuts …. Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is [believable] for just so much, [believable] in so far forth, [believable] instrumentally.(2)

James offers epistemological criteria for what warrants our belief. The idea that the rings of Saturn are public objects links our observations satisfactorily and saves intellectual labor compared to the idea that everyone seeing them observes something different. Similarly, the idea that the first samatha jhana is private to each meditator links our observations satisfactorily and saves intellectual labor compared to the idea that all the meditators perceive the same thing.

James took these epistemological criteria a step further into the metaphysical theory that all that exists is experience.(3) We need not go that far to understand that it is a good idea to examine our experience closely because our experience is all we have. Philosophically, the discipline of Phenomenology founded by Edmund Husserl is a useful method.(4) Practically, the disciplines of meditation, particularly Buddhist Vipassana, are helpful.(5) However we do it, investigating our own experience is a step toward knowing ourselves, the essence of wisdom.

—

Notes
(1) “Samatha” is a form of Buddhist meditation. “Jhana” is a Buddhist term meaning absorption. The first samatha jhana is the first of a series of states of meditative absorption. See The Dharma Overground, “Samatha jhanas.”

(2) James, “What Pragmatism Means,” p. 49. I substitute “believable” for “true” in this passage, as I think James, in his zeal, misuses the latter term.

“Yes, all observations are private, but what they are observations of is a matter of interpretation. Some are usefully taken to be public, and others, private. Science treats the former, and religion treats the latter” I disagree with this statement.

How you “see” things is definitely left to interpretation but there are some facts that support it. In another issue below it was stated that morality is a social construct. Again I disagree. Morality is enforced by a social construct but morality is an individual aspect of living.

At one time in our history it was ok to sacrifice people/children (Murdk god) actually required so in that sense it was socially condoned, but as individuals there had to be most who were repulsed by this behavior (if it was a loved one that was the lucky chosen one). These “observations” were in public view and sanctioned by the community which made it a very public action not private.

The point is that science and religion are intertwined by beliefs and rituals (repeated experiments) that the individual and public accept in order for society as a whole to function in a smooth manner. It is in discord when these beliefs and rituals are not in agreement with each other.

Only when there is true balance does the psych and observation stand at rest and peace and silence is present.

Give a group of people vipassana meditation instruction, record their reports and present the *reports* in a science journal. That’s science, not religion.

On the other hand ascribing an objective truth to the subjective experiences of the meditating subjects May not be science. Some may report aspects of reality that contradict our most basic experience( you don’t exist!). There is No way to confirm the truth of these subjective reports in the same way we can confirm the rings around Saturn.

Do another experiment – Have children spin around for 30 seconds and record the reports. The world is spinning say the children. No doubt that is their *experience*. But we know the world is not spinning.

In fact, the scientific rejoinder is that meditative experiences, although very soothing and healthy are nothing more that brains states – just like schizophrenia, and the reports of spinning children.

Personally, my bet (and hope) is that the highest revelations of the mystics do correspond to an objective reality. But how does one differentiate the rantings of a religious zealot from the mystic masters. I don’t think there is a conclusive scientific test. But there is our gut. Maybe the best benefit of mediation exercises for our lesser souls is developing our intuition to recognize truth when we hear/see it. Science cannot help us here.

But then again maybe science can help.Look at all the work over the last fifty years of so illustrating the consistency of science and the revelations of the mystics. We live in interesting times.

Randy, you ask “how does one differentiate the rantings of a religious zealot from the mystic masters?” I address a related question in my blog essay “What do you do with a peak experience?” here: http://www.bmeacham.com/blog/?p=61. Basically, you look at the effects of what the alleged mystic master says on the lives of those who follow his or her advice, and on your life should you choose to follow the advice yourself. Truth is not found in a single flash of insight, but in the connection that insight has with the rest of your experience. Good luck with it!

It strikes me that an important ingredient that is missing in the conversation concerning religious verses scientific experience is the idea of “altered states of consciousness”. It is a phrase that you seldom hear in science but often hear in religious conversation. Now technically speaking any change in input into our brain produces an altered state. So, for example a shift in our attention away from one view to another by simply turning our head activates different neural pathways and produces an altered brain state. Of course for the religious “altered brain states” and “altered consciousness” are very different things. But what are we actually talking about?

To begin with there is one idea of simple change from one moment to the next versus the idea that there is some base line level from which “altered” means something more than a standard deviation. The assumption is that if the subject is healthy physically and mentally then there is a measurable state we might call “normal”. But as any psychologist will tell you — as my psychologist wife often does — “normal” is a setting on your dryer not a description of any known human state. No, human beings live and perceive somewhere along a spectrum which moves from unconsciousness to REM sleep to drug or chemical induced illusions to the common conscious experience of every day life. Each of these states and many others can be measured and studied with CAT scans and other chemical markers. Even deep meditative practices or prayer can be measured in this way. But of course a religious experience defined as “altered consciousness” refuses to be defined by these “brain states”. It is claimed to be something more. It is here that we leave science and enter the realm of “private” experience. I can measure brain activity and I can ask the person to describe their experience but I really cannot capture their inner sense of what they are experiencing. This is true with schizophrenic patients, drug addicts, PTSD patients, sensory deprivation experiment clients and religious mystics. It is interesting to note that for most of these we define their experience as a brain state brought on by a chemical imbalance or mental illness while for the religious variety we prefer to define their “altered conscious state” as being some experience of ultimate reality.

Of course sometimes the two cross paths as when a mental patient claims to be Jesus Christ but generally we get the difference.

But why do we grant religion and its adherents this free pass? Why do we accept their claims of superior knowledge or greater awareness of the “real” world? As I view the current world and our history I am struck by just how often we have allowed the religious among us — those claiming a superior wisdom or vision — to lead us down the path of violence, bloodshed and ignorance. What strikes me is the fact that those claiming this “altered conscious state” and their true believers have shed personal responsibility for what they do in the name of their greater cause, their better version of the “real”. The real issue with private reality as opposed to scientific reality is that private reality never doubts or questions what it thinks it knows while science always does.

No, the observations of science are not ‘private’, but rather are made open to the public for scruiiny. this means that if i, or anyone else cannot duplicate what you’ve observed, then it isn’t science.

Moreover, the language of this public observation is called ‘quantifiable entities’. Counting and math puts everyone on the same page.

In any case, ‘private’ observations are strictly forbidden as heretical by the Catholic Church– as The Thomist Heresy. Only in protestantism can you develop a personal relationship with the supreme dog (pardon my dyslexia).

I am by no means an expert on Roman Catholic doctrine, but I don’t think Thomas Aquinus is considered heretical. I found an interesting discussion, “Pope Francis on decadent/bankrupt forms of Thomism,” here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=825004.